But some experts think the nationwide skills gap is overblown.Elise Gould, senior economist at the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, said federal jobs data shows there are two unemployed manufacturing workers for every available job. She said employers looking for workers could be doing more to train available workers or attract more talent by offering higher wages. “Actually, there’s a lot of unemployed workers in that field that you’re trying to hire in,” she said, noting that she did not have specific data on New Hampshire’s manufacturing sector.

The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute is out with a new study asserting that such a tax could raise anywhere between $110 billion and $403 billion a year. Over a decade, Josh Bivens, one of the paper’s authors, believes it potentially could raise just short of $4 trillion over a decade. “I would not bet my house on the high end. This is a big policy change that we just don’t have real world experience with,” Bivens told Morning Tax. “But I wouldn’t reject it out of hand either.” For comparison’s sake, a $4 trillion FTT would raise more than six times as much as the revenue raised by the fiscal cliff deal. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projected a more modest influx from a financial tax, more like $50 billion a year. Bivens said it’s difficult to project the revenue impact of an FTT because “we really just don’t have a real world model that’s been designed with minimizing tax avoidance,” which he said made it difficult to predict just how much the tax would affect the number of trades and other factors. EPI study here: http://bit.ly/2aCb4z6… Of course, the design of the FTT plays a big role in how much it raises. The tax modeled in Baker’s paper would tax stock trades at 0.2 percent, bonds at 0.1 percent and derivatives at 0.002 percent. EPI’s tax is more robust, taxing stock trades at 0.5 percent. A leading FTT proposal on Capitol Hill, from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), would tax trades of stocks, bonds and derivatives at 0.03 percent.

Many analyses of a financial transaction tax underestimate the revenue it could generate, Josh Bivens and Hunter Blair find in a new paper for the liberal Economic Policy Institute. While several recent research papers have shown that an FTT, based on the proposals introduced in Congress by Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, would produce $50 billion to $70 billion in revenue, Messrs. Bivens and Blair estimate it would produce far more: $110 billion to $403 billion. They attribute the wide range of their own numbers to difference estimates of how trading volume might respond to such a tax. In addition they argue that lower trading volume would be a net positive, or at least neutral, for the U.S. economy because it would “crowd out” dollars from financial transactions and support the rest of the economy, raising household income in the process.

In some spots in this country, it costs parents well into six figures just to eke by. The amount that a two-parent, two-child family needs just to pay the bills (but not have money left over for savings) ranges from about $50,000 to more than $100,000 depending on where a family lives, according to data from the nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank the Economic Policy Institute. “This does not mean a middle-class lifestyle,” says Elise Gould, a senior economist with EPI. “This is just living, no savings.”

“I haven’t heard a coherent position from Donald Trump on the minimum wage,” said David Cooper of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “But it is nice to hear both sides recognize this.” Beyond Trump, Cooper also rebutted the pro-business argument that a wage increase would cost jobs, saying studies have shown that, overall, low-wage workers come out in better shape after a minimum wage increase.

In 2013, an analysis by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute found that about 18 percent of Texas’ total workforce, or about 1.9 million people, makes less than $10.10 an hour. Taking into account those indirectly affected by the rest of the payscale rising above the new minimum wage, the percentage goes up to 26 percent. Last year, Texas’ Center for Public Policy Priorities came to a similar conclusion.

Economist Robert Scott at the Economic Policy Institute said the increasing visibility of international trade issues in national politics is partly a result of the two-decade-plus legacy of NAFTA, which he said many voters blame for job-losses and industry displacement in their regions. “Often we find that we have growing trade deficits with our partners in these deals,” said Scott. “They are designed to encourage outsourcing of production–so we tend to see our imports increasing more than our exports. This also tends to put downward pressure on wages. So it hurts essentially all non-college-educated workers, who make up about two-thirds of the labor force.” Scott said that with a weak economic recovery and a presidential election looming, a lot of attention is now focused on jobs and wages. And he said voters are asking whether trade deals touted by mainstream leaders of both political parties have made matters worse.

One estimate from the Economic Policy Institute found that China’s entrance to the World Trade Organization alone cost $37 billion in lost American wages in 2011. A different study from the same group also found that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed under former President Bill Clinton, displaced almost 900,000 U.S. jobs.

“A financial transaction tax would help ensure Wall Street works for Main Street” is the intriguing title of a paper released today by the Economic Policy Institute. A few years ago, I had designated myself as the left wing of the elderly curmudgeon division of CCR LLP, a large regional accounting firm, the result of the merger of two venerable large local firms, that has since been swallowed by a not quite Big Four national (more nimble). The other old guys would look at me with wonder as I told them about Jill Stein and the Green Party platform.

There are a lot of factors going into that: one is shift over many decades away from defined-benefit pension plans and towards individual contributions into 401(k)s, which have varying levels of contributions, participation and returns. In a recent report, the Economic Policy Institute showed 401(k)’s primarily benefit the wealthiest families for a variety of reasons. And, the Great Recession took a big bite out of family wealth, which has been slower to return to low-income households.

But the enthusiasm could be tempered by some sobering news: A new report shows that, despite having equal or more education than men, women are still paid less than men. The report released Thursday by the Economic Policy Institute – timed to coincide with Clinton’s historic nomination – shows “despite the fact that millions more women have joined the workforce and made huge gains in their educational attainment over the last several decades, women still earn less than men at every educational level.” According to the report, women with an advanced college degree earn less than men with a college degree, and women who have attended some college take home less than men with a high school diploma. The disparities don’t end there: Women straight out of college make around $4 less per hour than men, and the gap has grown since 2000. The report is more evidence the gender gap has yet to narrow, despite Clinton’s groundbreaking achievement.

It’s no secret that women are paid less than men in the workplace—79 cents to the dollar, to be exact. A report by research assistant, Jessica Schieder, and Senior Economist, Elise Gould, of the Economic Policy Institute revealed that many people argue that the pay gap is not a matter of discrimination. Instead, it’s a matter of certain factors including occupational choice, education, and pre-set expectations about women’s role in the work place and family that directly affect a woman’s pay.

But the enthusiasm could be tempered by some sobering news: A new report shows that, despite having equal or more education than men, women are still paid less than men. The report released Thursday by the Economic Policy Institute – timed to coincide with Clinton’s historic nomination – shows “despite the fact that millions more women have joined the workforce and made huge gains in their educational attainment over the last several decades, women still earn less than men at every educational level.” According to the report, women with an advanced college degree earn less than men with a college degree, and women who have attended some college take home less than men with a high school diploma. The disparities don’t end there: Women straight out of college make around $4 less per hour than men, and the gap has grown since 2000. The report is more evidence the gender gap has yet to narrow, despite Clinton’s groundbreaking achievement.

So, in 2014 — 22 years after full employment first disappeared from the Democratic platform — Conyers helped create the Full Employment Caucus in the House of Representatives. The caucus now boasts 32 members, many of whom worked on the committees that helped draft this year’s Democratic platform. Some also reached out to Hillary Clinton’s team. Meanwhile, the Fed Up campaign and the Economic Policy Institute both helped organize pressure and gather signatures.

Even with a high-school diploma, wages have gone nowhere. White, male, high-school grads or less make an average of $20.33 an hour, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That’s a 6-cent inflation-adjusted raise since 1981, and 15 cents since 2008.

Lawrence Mishel is president of the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank. Mishel, a native of Philadelphia who now lives in Washington, was back to visit for the DNC. “Well, the economy certainly isn’t fixed, but the economy is in a better position than it was a few years ago when we were in the midst of the greatest recession since the 1930s,” Mishel said. “What we really haven’t fixed is getting people’s wages to rise faster than inflation for low-wage and middle-wage workers. To do that, we need to have strong continued growth. We can’t let the Federal Reserve Board raise interest rates to slow down the economy, and it would be really great if Congress could invest in infrastructure and do things that would create more jobs” – both issues that were raised during Clinton’s acceptance speech last night

When our politicians and diplomats negotiate trade deals, we lose because they don’t know a good deal from a bad one. For instance, when President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA in 1993, he believed it would “create 200,000 jobs in this country by 1995 alone.” Instead, the U.S. has lost over 700,000 jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute, while our trade deficit with Mexico has rocketed from $1.6 billion in 1993 to $60 billion in 2015, according to the Commerce Department… As for 2012’s South Korean free trade agreement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it a “cutting edge trade deal” that would create 70,000 new jobs. All we’ve gotten is a near doubling of our South Korean trade deficit and more than 75,000 jobs lost, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

And yet a 2009 study from the Economic Policy Institute found that taxpayers actually receive a $17-$221 return on investment for every dollar invested in controlling lead hazards. The reason is simple: Keeping children safe from lead hazards can prevent future health issues, reduce criminal activity, limit the number of kids who end up in special education programs, and improve individual IQs and lifetime earnings—all of which reduce stress on the economy. “There is no other public health program in the country that has that kind of dollar return,” Norton says.

Similarly, a report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) argues that “through generating tax revenues, decreasing the fees Americans pay on their investments, and shrinking unproductive parts of the financial sector, an FTT would help Wall Street work for Main Street.” The papers were released after the Democratic Party adopted a platform endorsing a FTT “to curb excessive speculation and high-frequency trading.” The platform also states that there is room for Democrats to have varying views on a broader FTT.

But the occupational differences explanation, when presented without caveats, is also problematic. “The story is a lot more complicated than that,” says Elise Gould, an economist and the co-author of a new report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute about gender and compensation. “We wanted to disentangle the question of ‘choice’ and what’s happening between two workers that are sitting right next to each other in a cubicle … What’s going on behind that in terms of cultural norms, expectations, work-family balance—all the different components that might lead women to be in certain kinds of jobs differently than men.”

A new report confirms what millions of women already know: that women’s choices are not to blame for the gender wage gap. Instead, researchers at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the progressive think tank that issued the report, say that women’s unequal pay is driven by “discrimination, social norms, and other factors beyond women’s control.”

Median home prices rose 4.8 percent from June 2015 to June 2016, according to NAR, but wages remain relatively stagnant. According to the Economic Policy Institute, wages grew 2.6 percent during that same period.

That’s doubly true because the American workforce is getting steadily less white. The Economic Policy Institute, in a report that defines members of the working class as labor force participants who lack a bachelor’s degree, estimated that whites will constitute a minority of the working class by 2032. If racist policing and immigrant justice are not obviously class issues, they are matters of vital concern to large and growing segments of one class in particular.

But Robert Scott, who has been following trade issues for years at the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute and opposes the deal, said the endgame remains to be determined. “I don’t think it’s over until it’s over,” he said.

According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), workers misclassified as independent contractors can be found in nearly every industry, and the phenomenon has grown considerably with the rise of the gig economy. Uber, the ride-hailing company, has become the poster child for worker misclassification, with numerous lawsuits alleging that Uber wrongly classifies its drivers as independent contractors. But Uber is hardly alone – examples of worker misclassification can be found in scores of new sectors, from housecleaners to technical workers.

In a 2015 report, EPI described the advantages to employers of misclassifying workers. “Employers who misclassify avoid paying payroll taxes and workers’ compensation insurance, are not responsible for providing health insurance, and are able to bypass requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.” If this weren’t enough, the report continues, “misclassified workers are ineligible for unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, minimum wage, and overtime, and are forced to pay the full FICA tax and purchase their own health insurance.”

Elise Gould, Senior Economist and Director of Health Policy Research at Economic Policy Institute, discussed the landscape of minimum wage and living wage employment — including who should make $7.25 an hour and what burden employers have to provide for their employees. EPI has recently released their Family Budget Calculator, which shows regional differences in how much income is needed for economic security.

The conversations we had around whether to endorse the fight for $15 here in Baltimore resembled many of the conversations we have at our monthly cooperative business meetings. We are constantly trying to balance our perspective as workers, working democratically to create the best jobs for ourselves we can, with our perspective as small business owners with 20 equal partners, all trying to keep our eyes on the bottom line and the company in the black. So while we recognize that a substantial raise in the minimum wage is long overdue, and that the benefits of $15 per hour — increased local purchasing power and increased financial security for the 98,000 workers the Economic Policy Institute estimates will see a raise — will benefit the entire local economy, we’re also extremely sensitive to the concerns that many small business owners have begun to voice.

“I think it’s useless — it’s burial insurance,” said Robert Scott, a scholar at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “It does not provide enough relief or enough training to get people into a new job.”… Scott noted the difficulty of achieving a worker retraining program similar to ones in Germany and the Nordic countries, which spend as much as 5 percent of gross domestic product on worker retraining process. In the U.S., that level of retraining commitment would be valued at close to $1 trillion. Current TAA funding is $450 million a year, or less than 1 percent of U.S. GDP.

Such findings will not exactly come as a shock to those who have watched top execs’ pay shoot into the stratosphere over the last 30 years — often with little to show for investors. CEO comp since 1978 has soared 941 percent, while the S&P 500 over that time is up 543 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Sign up to stay informed

Track EPI on Twitter

EPI is an independent, nonprofit think tank that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States. EPI’s research helps policymakers, opinion leaders, advocates, journalists, and the public understand the bread-and-butter issues affecting ordinary Americans.